Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228701476

eLearningActivitiesforTeachingManufacturingSystem

ARTICLE·AUGUST2002

READS

6

4AUTHORS,INCLUDING:

EmoryZimmers

LehighUniversity

14PUBLICATIONS70CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

Allin-textreferencesunderlinedinbluearelinkedtopublicationsonResearchGate,

lettingyouaccessandreadthemimmediately.

Availablefrom:EmoryZimmers

Retrievedon:10December2015

International Conference on Engineering Education July 21–25, 2003, Valencia, Spain.1

eLearning Activities for Teaching Manufacturing System

Authors:

Muhammad Sohail Ahmed, Ph.D, sohail@mie.eng.wayne.edu, Wayne State University, Detroit MI 48201 USANancy L. Baskin, M.Ed., baskinn@focushope.edu, Greenfield Coalition, Detroit, MI 48238 USAGregory L. Tonkay, Ph.D., jef2@lehigh.edu, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 18015 USAEmory W. Zimmers, Ph.D., ewz0@lehigh.edu, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 18015 USA

Abstract Self-directed and experiential learning is significant for effective engineering education. Certain cognitiveprocesses such as problem-solving and reasoning are particularly important to the successful completion of engineeringtasks. Because engineering often involves innovation and invention, creativity and teamwork are crucial. eLearning,instruction in a web-based environment, offers a avenue for higher level thinking: images can be dynamic, parameters can bemanipulated, and outputs can be simulated. However, many online engineering courses do not make use of thesetechnological possibilities. Instead, courses employ text heavy HTML pages and display too many static images. Despite theavailability of research supporting the benefits of interactive education, this knowledge is under-utilized in most existingeLearning products and services. This paper describes three activities from Manufacturing Systems II, a course in theGreenfield Coalition (GC) Learning System. GC courses incorporate a blended learning approach where learning issituated in three different environments: classroom, web-based, and experiential. The activities are presented usingdiscovery and experiential learning to convey concepts that are difficult to teach in a traditional classroom. Web-basedactivities and classroom discussions help create interactive learning. Some of the activities begin with students firstencountering a real-world manufacturing situation in a web-based environment. They explore a condition and discover,individually or collaboratively, the effects of various parameters on specific outputs. The classroom discussions that followelaborate on the material and clarify concepts. Activities that incorporate discovery learning in an interactive environmentcan improve student learning and retention. Learners are able to problem-solve in authentic situations presented in a web-based format and discover how engineering concepts interrelate. When a real-world environment is created usingsimulation and animation on the web, students are better able to transfer their learning to the workplace. EffectiveeLearning materials are dependent upon the successful combination of real world content, technology and interactivity.

Index Terms Experiential learning, engaged learning, eLearning, blended learning, web-based learning tools

INTRODUCTION

eLearning is one of the hottest topics in higher education since the 1990s. After passing through its infancy, researchers andapplication managers all over the world have started researching the process in detail. Though the enormous growth of theInternet has opened new means of delivering university courses without geographic boundaries [1], several lessons have beenlearned about their effectiveness.

Engineering represents a major category of adult education that is critical to most aspects of modern society. ApplyingeLearning to engineering education is not a new topic, Gramoll's [2] scaleable Internet portal for engineering mechanicscourses provide a lead in such applications. However, because of the different learning skills set for the engineering,education researchers are redefining the ways and methodologies of engineering education [3], which will change the wayengineering education is delivered online.

This paper describes the problems with eLearning in general, and its application within engineering education inparticular. It highlights the possibilities of using various teaching strategies for effective learninng in the eLearning domain,outlines a modified eLearning concept for engineering education, and details three examples from a Greenfield Coalitioncourse.

PROBLEMS WITH ELEARNING

Rolf Ahdell [4], defined eLearning as an “effective and engaging learning anywhere at anytime, developed and deliveredusing information technology.” It is a valuable extension of the distance education, enabled by the new information and

International Conference on Engineering Education July 21–25, 2003, Valencia, Spain.2

communication technologies. Distance education normally occurs in a different place from teaching and as a result requiresspecial techniques of course design, instructional strategies, methods of communication, as well as organizational andadministrative arrangements [5]. In the European Union, eLearning is being seen as a major opportunity to move Europeforward to a knowledge society [6]. The US eLearning market has a projected value of $11.5 billion by this year [7] while theEuropean market is expected to be worth $4 billion by 2004 [8].

Due to the flexibility provided to students/trainees and teachers/trainers, both in space and time, eLearning may be asource of great joy to its users and an important source of financial resources for many organizations. However, eLearning isbased on the cooperation of geographically distributed participants. Many of the activities the participants are supposed toperform do not have strict time schedules, but do have time constraints that must be respected. If these constraints are notfulfilled, severe problems may occur and the success of a specific task or action may be in jeopardy. These kinds of problemsare difficult to solve, because of the distributed nature of the resources and participants of an eLearning environment [7].

Poor usability of eLearning contributes to disappointing results for many companies for the following reasons:• Failure to create a lasting advantage in a crowded and competitive marketplace.• Failure to develop ongoing customer loyalty. Despite the trend toward lifelong learning, people will be reluctant to

continually return to services that they find difficult to use.

In a survey conducted by the Jane Messey [9], it was reported that 61% of all respondents rated the overall quality ofeLearning negatively - as fair or poor. The following describes some problems associated with eLearning content.

Poor Design

Poor design is one of the biggest problems with eLearning. According to Margaret Rueda [2], many people are developingeLearning that is a complete disservice to the entire industry. eLearning must be engaging and interactive in order to beeffective. The most promising feature of multimedia and network-based media is its ability to interactively display complexinformation and concepts in an accessible and easy to understand, animated graphical form [3]. Also, though eLearning is agreat tool, some topics are better covered in a facilitated setting. For example, it would be difficult to practice teambuildingskills within an eLearning environment.

Boring, Text Heavy Content

One of the roadblocks in online courses and training is static content with weak interactivity [9]. Much of eLearning is whereeBusiness was seven years ago, but instead of vendors creating online catalogues, trainers are now developing onlinetextbooks. Most of the today’s eLearning implies scrolling text-heavy HTML-pages. Multimedia and network-based mediatechnologies have the potential of providing a mean for dealing with these issues in a dynamic, provocative, and cost-effective manner that not only will increase the effectiveness of the educational program but will also increase the quality ofthe resulting students [5, 6].

Effects are Hard to Measured

The overall impact of eLearning remains uncertain, because managers/evaluators fail to measure effectiveness. In a survey ofan online course, 77% of the respondents do not track the number of employees who take advantage of online training, andtwo-thirds do not measure the effectiveness of their net-based programs [10]. It is difficult and time-consuming to measureeffects quantitatively, and therefore many companies only use qualitative feedback instead.

Technological Issues

Smallwood and Zargari [11] pointed out occasional technology problems as an issue with the online learning. Technologicalissues, such as Internet connectivity & availability, bandwidth, metadata, information system, standardized structure,redundancy due to poor database architecture, etc. play a vital role in the application of any eLearning program. They canhinder the utilization of courses by professors/trainers and equally students can get distracted from the first goal of eLearning,the learning itself. Security and reliability will be of high priority as cross-references and technical collaboration betweencourses increases. These issues will play a major role in web portals such as Gramoll’s courses web portal [3].

ENGINEERING EDUCATION

Although there are many different types of engineering (e.g., aerospace, chemical, civil, electrical/electronic,industrial/manufacturing, mechanical, mining, nuclear), the fundamental nature of engineering is similar across all domains[12, 13]. Engineering is undergoing an identity crisis. According to Williams [14], the mission of engineering changes when

International Conference on Engineering Education July 21–25, 2003, Valencia, Spain.3

its dominant objective no longer involves the conquest of nature, but rather the creation and management of a self-madehabitat.

Certain cognitive processes such as problem-solving and reasoning are particularly important in engineering tasks. Sincemost engineering methods involve some form of mathematics, this is a critical learning domain. In addition, engineeringoften involves innovation or invention; hence creativity is very important.

Most modern engineering activities are conducted in a team setting with a great deal of interaction among teammembers. This makes social learning and development highly relevant to engineering education [15, 16]. Furthermore, manyengineers must perform some sort of management function, making this domain of skills relevant as well. Like most otherprofessionals, engineers must engage in lifelong learning in order to stay current in their field. This means that self-directedand experiential learning, as outlined in the theories of Cross [17] and Rogers [18], is significant for engineering education.

Denning [5] states that future engineers must, in addition to being competent in engineering basics, be skilled listenersfor concerns of customers or clients, be rigorous in managing commitments and achieving customer or client satisfaction, andbe prepared for ongoing learning. He discusses the changes required in university programs to accommodate these needs.Jones [19] outlines the role that educational technology needs to play in continuing education for engineers, suggesting thattheories of learning that focus on media [20, 21] are relevant to engineering education.

SOLUTION

Despite the availability of new research in areas such as learning sciences, cognitive science, reasoning, instructional designand technology, collaborative learning, learner-centered design, and learning technology, the knowledge is under utilized inmost currently available eLearning products and services. Unfortunately, too many eLearning companies/universities justdeliver course materials rather than create knowledge-building communities. Too many of them stress memorization of factsthat are tested with multiple choice questions, rather than having the learners actually use their new knowledge and skills aspart of collaborative projects with other online learners. In order to formulate any new methodology for EngineeringEducation and eLearning that can cater to the above problems, its content should address the following types of learning:media focus, experiential, and social. This framework could be referenced as the eLearning Content Domain (see Figure 1).

The social learning theory of Bandura, [14], emphasizes the importance of observing and modeling the behaviors,attitudes, and emotional reactions of others. Bandura states, "Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mentionhazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do.” Vygotsky's theory iscomplementary to the work of Bandura on social learning and a key component of situated learning theory [15].

Vygotsky’s theory [16] was an attempt to explain awareness as the product of socialization. For example, when learninglanguage, our first words with peers or adults are for the purpose of communication; but once mastered, they becomeinternalized and allow inner speech. Social learning emphasizes the following:

• Individuals are more likely to adopt a modeled behavior if it results in outcomes they value.• Individuals are more likely to adopt a modeled behavior if the model is similar to the observer and has admired

status and the behavior has functional value.

Experiential Learning

Rogers [22, 18] distinguished two types of learning: cognitive and experiential. The former corresponds to academicknowledge, such as, learning vocabulary or multiplication tables; and the latter refers to applied knowledge, such as, learningabout engines in order to repair a car. The key to the distinction is that experiential learning addresses the needs and wants ofthe learner. Rogers lists these qualities of experiential learning: personal involvement, self-initiated, evaluation by learner,and pervasive effects on learner.

Experiential learning is equivalent to personal change and growth in which the teacher is to facilitate such learning. Thisincludes: (1) setting a positive climate for learning, (2) clarifying the purposes of the learner(s), (3) organizing and makingavailable learning resources, (4) balancing intellectual and emotional components of learning, and (5) sharing feelings andthoughts with learners but not dominating.

International Conference on Engineering Education July 21–25, 2003, Valencia, Spain.4

Media Focus Learning

The symbol systems theory developed by Salomon is intended to explain the effects of media on learning. According toSalomon [20], the symbol systems of media affect the acquisition of knowledge by highlighting various aspects of contentand by coding and recoding to ease elaboration. For example, Salomon suggests that television requires less mentalprocessing than reading and that the meanings secured from viewing television tend to be less elaborate than those securedfrom reading (i.e., different levels of processing are involved).

When developing a distance delivery course, designers must provide a way for students and instructor to interact [23]. Itshould be engaging and interactive in order to be effective. eLearning is a great tool, however, some topics are better coveredin a facilitated setting. For example, it would be difficult to practice social skills, such as communication, with eLearning.Many of the eLearning tools like Blackboard and WebCT have the online chat and discussion boards, but they fail to emulatea live group setting. In an ideal eLearning situation, a face-to-face component still exists and a blended learning experience iscreated.

GREENFIELD COALITION

Greenfield Coalition (GC) at Focus:HOPE is coalition of five universities, seven manufacturing companies, the Society ofManufacturing Engineers, and Focus:HOPE. GC was formed to create a revolutionary educational experience leading tobachelor degrees in engineering and engineering technology. The National Science Foundation funds the Coalition; it aims tointegrate academic studies and manufacturing skills learned in the workplace. The GC vision leverages technology toenhance and accelerate progress toward the degree [24].

GC’s instructional design strategy is built on Gagne theory [25]. Gagne identifies five major categories of learning:verbal information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, motor skills, and attitudes. The significance of these classificationsis that each type of learning requires different types of instruction, because distinct internal and external conditions arenecessary for each type of learning. Gagne suggests that learning tasks for intellectual skills can be organized in a hierarchyaccording to complexity: stimulus recognition, response generation, procedure following, use of terminology,discriminations, concept formation, rule application, and problem solving. The primary significance of the hierarchy is toidentify prerequisites that should be completed to facilitate learning at each level. Doing an analysis of a learning/trainingtask identifies prerequisites. Learning hierarchies provide a basis for the sequencing of instruction.

In addition, Gagne’s theory outlines nine instructional events and corresponding cognitive processes:• Gaining attention (reception)• Informing learners of the objectives (expectancy)• Stimulating recall of prior learning (retrieval)• Presenting the stimulus/content (selective perception)• Providing learning guidance (semantic encoding)• Eliciting performance (responding)• Providing feedback (reinforcement)• Assessing performance (retrieval)• Enhancing retention and transfer (generalization).

GC incorporates Gagne’s theories into all instructional materials. In so doing, they follow a blended learning approachas seen in Figure 2. The approach includes classroom instruction for discussions and group collaboration; online componentsfor simulations, animations, and other media; as well as an experiential component involving both shop floor activities andcase studies. It encompasses all the learning theories that effect engineering education and eLearning. GC’s approach focuseson the articulation of clear and consistent objectives for classroom learning as well as learning in work-related activities [24].

DESIGNING DEVELOPING AND DELIVERING CONTENT

When designing a course, a team of subject matter experts from academia and industry collaborate with an instructionaldesigner and a programmer/media specialist. The goal is to create an instructionally-sound, technically-supported, engagingcourse or case study. The resulting materials are inclusive of key manufacturing engineering concepts and directly applicableto real-world, on-the-job experiences. Often these materials include templates, tools, and step-by-step instructions used bypracticing engineers.

International Conference on Engineering Education July 21–25, 2003, Valencia, Spain.5

Using Gagne’s Nine External Events of Instruction as a guide, GC is able to maximize the effictiveness of instruction,add relevance to the content, and foster an active learning atmosphere. At the commencement of a course, students are posedwith a situation or set of questions to stimulate and engage thought processing regarding the concept at hand. These situationsand questions relate to real world problems that do not have one discreet answer. Rather, there are many potential solutionswith differing costs and benefits. The learning activities that follow, encourage learners to do their own investigations,challenge typical solutions, and practice the skills and techniques that will be necessary on the job.

An introduction to the session content occurs in one of the following ways: reading material, a web-based environment,or a classroom discussion. Students come to class prepared to discuss issues related to topic at hand. The instructor facilitatesa discussion and gives feedback to help foster social learning skills. The instructor focuses the learners’ attention on anexperiential learning situation. The activities are focused on solving situations faced within engineering environments, andthe questions are pertinent to the outcome. Students are given real time examples and facts. This is exemplified in casestudies where learners are challenged to determine the scope of the problem, how it can be solved, and what materials –textbook, Internet, instructor, knowledge and experience of peers – are essential for completing the activity. Finally, studentsend up solving an issue, are able to relate it to the concept, and are better able to apply theoretical concepts on the job.

MANUFACTURING SYSTEM COURSE

Three activities, developed using the Greenfield Coalition paradigm, are detailed below. These activities are the part of aManufacturing System course. The descriptions show how the activities were designed to facilitate the learning process.

The selected examples are from the session Production Concepts & Mathematical Models. The objective of this sessionis that the learners will be able to calculate basic performance attributes of manufacturing systems such as measures ofproduction rate, capacity, and manufacturing lead-time. The students read about the concepts of production rate, capacity,utilization, availability, and work in process. They are asked to discuss certain scenarios, such as, whether or not it is itpossible to have 100% availability. They are invited to use their experiences to discuss different machining and assemblyoperations. The classroom discussion creates an environment where students are able to share their experiences and learnfrom one another.

Machining Process and Production Rate

The activity, Machining Process & Production Rate, emphasizes discovery learning (see Figure 3). As noted earlier,engineering education revolves around the norms of analysis and formulas. This is an attempt to help students discoverrelationships using a cause and effects activity. Students are given a machining operation (mill or lath), they are able tochange manufacturing parameters such as machining time, work handling time, batch size, etc. and see the effects on theproduction rate and the batch time. Until this point, the students have not gone through the basic equations for production rateand batch time. All they know up to this point is that operation time, batch time, and scrap may affect the production rate. Atthe end of the activity, students are asked to point out what parameters affect production rate and the concerns associated witha cycle time increase.

These responses are discussed in the classroom. Instructors can create a discussion based on the learner responses. Theycan link the input parameters to response and highlight the empirical or theoretical relation. Instead of just showing thestudents formulas, a bigger picture of cause and effect was shown to get the students to discover the formula.

Assembly Line and Production Rate

In the second activity, Assembly Line & Production Rate, the students explore the difference between assembly and process.The focus is on the effect of length of transfer line on the production rate and the buffer size and the interdependencies ofvarious workstations. Students are introduced to parameters that can affect the production rate of an assembly operation.They are shown how individual operations/workstations and cycle time effect the production rate. In the web-based activity,they get to manipulate a simulation of assembly line.

This assembly line has five operations/workstations along with one receiving and a shipping station (see Figure 4).Students have the ability to modify the location of the workstations, the speed of the transfer line, and the cycle time ofoperations. By running the simulation, they can see the simulated production time and rate and the work in process. Theyhave the option of making the simulation run for different sizes and speeds of the transfer line and cycle time. The activityends with various questions about the effects of various parameters on the production. The answers are captured online, sothe instructor is able to review them before class and pattern a discussion based upon learner understanding. This activity

International Conference on Engineering Education July 21–25, 2003, Valencia, Spain.6

helps students to discover the dynamic nature of the assembly line and discover the effect of manufacturing parameters on theassembly production rate.

Capacity and Resource Allocation

The third activity deals with capacity and resource allocation. The focus of the activity is on the learners being able todemonstrate decision-making skills for issues involving capacity. They are introduced with the concept of plant capacity andits relation with the fluctuating demand. The activity starts with a brief discussion about the concept of capacity adjustment,using adjusting machines, and schedules and time.

They are given a scenario where they need to make a decision regarding capacity and resource allocation. They are ableto use a web-based tool to help them with the calculations required for a sound decision (see Figure 5). The tool giveslearners the ability to change the number of machines, the hours for the shifts, and/or the number of shifts per year to find outif the system is over or under capacity. The students are asked various questions regarding their decisions. The classroomdiscussion outlines the importance of resource allocation based on cost and time including, in some cases, the loss of businessand good will.

CONCLUSIONS

Delivering online courses and training requires more than putting the text on the web. eLearning content should be interactiveand exiting. Engineering curriculum is evolving and the content should reflect those changes. Decision-making, problem-solving, and working in teams are norms that are essential for an engineer to work in today’s global engineering environment.Following the blended learning approach, Greenfield Coalition has adopted a unique way of developing and deliveringcontent that enables engineers to acquire the needed competencies. Greenfield Coalition’s blended learning approach,utilizing discovery and problem-solving strategies based in real world situations, has given students the opportunity todiscover the links between theory and practice and learn the application of the theories within authentic conditions.

Acknowledgement

The Greenfield Coalition is partially supported by a Grant EEC-9630951 under the Engineering Education CoalitionsProgram at the National Science Foundation. Focus:HOPE, our industry and academic partners have contributed valuableresources to support the development of Greenfield.

REFERENCES

[1] Kroder, S. S, J. and Sachs, D. “Lessons in Launching Web-based Graduate Courses,’ The Journal On-Line: Technological Horizons in Education. Vol.25, Part. 10, (1998) pp66-69.

[2] Pelham, T M, “The Adaptability and Flexibility of eLearning”, Hartford Business Journal, October 01, 2000.

[3] Gramoll, K. “An Internet Portal For Statics And Dynamics Engineering Courses”, International Conference on Engineering Education, August 6 – 10,2001, pp 3B1-1.

[4] Ahdell, Rolf, Gottorn, Anderson. “Games and simulation in workplace eLearning”, Master Thesis Norwegian University of Science and Technology.2001. [last access 14 March 16, 2003]. www.twitchspeed.com/site/download/thesis_final.pdf

[5] Denning, P. “Educating a New Engineer”. Communications of the ACM, 35(12), (1992). p 83-97.

[6] Moore, Michael “Distance Education: A Systems View”, Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1996 [last access 14 March 16, 2003].http://www.cde.psu.edu/de/what_is_de.html#definition

[7] Ramos, F. Conde, A. Neves, L. Moriera, A. “Management of eLearning Environments: some Issues and Research Clues”, Proceedings of the IASTEDInternational Conference, Applied Informatics, Feb 2002.

[8] Frontend.com, “Why People can’t Use eLearning”. Available at the Infocenter Frontend web site, [last accessed on March 23, 2003]:http://infocentre.frontend.com/downloads/ Why_people_can't_use_eLearning.pdf

[9] Messy, J. “Quality and eLearning in Europe Survey report 2002, BIZ Media” (Last accessed on March 24, 2003)www.elearningage.co.uk/docs/qualitysummary.pdf

[10] Online Training Needs a New Course", Forrester Research Inc., Cambridge MA, USA. [Last accessed March 23, 2003] http://www.forrester.com

[11] Smallwood J, E. & Zargari, A. “The Development and Delivery of a Distance Learning (DL) Course in Industrial Technology”, Journal of IndustrialTechnology, Vol. 16 No. 3 May – July 2000.

[12] Florman, S.C “The Existential Pleasures of Engineering” . New York: St. Martins Press. (1976).

[13] Kemper, J.D. “Engineers and Their Profession”, (3rd Ed). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. (1982).

International Conference on Engineering Education July 21–25, 2003, Valencia, Spain.7

SocialLearning

ExperientialLearning

MediaFocus

Learning

eLearningContentDomain

eLearningContentDomain

ClassroomActivity• Team work• Discussions

Technology• Simulation• Animation

Reality Based• Part Design• Case Studies

Media FocusLearning

SocialLearning

ExperientialLearning

[14] Williams, R. “Education for the Profession Formally Known as Engineering”, The Chronicle of Higher Education The Chronicle Review, Vol 49 Issue20 January 2003.

[15] Bandura, A. “Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control”. New York: W.H. Freeman, (1997).

[16] Vygotsky, L.S. “Mind in Society”. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, (1978).

[17] Cross, K.P. “Adults as Learners”. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (1981).

[18] Rogers, C.R. & Freiberg, H.J. “Freedom to Learn” (3rd Ed). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Macmillan (1994).

[19] Jones, R. “Educational Technology for Quality Engineering Education”.: American Society for Engineering Education. Washington, DC (1986).

[20] Salomon, G. “Communication and Education”. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. (1981).

[21] Mager, R. “Making Instruction Work. Belmont”, CA: Lake Publishing Co. (1988).

[22] Rogers, C.R. “Freedom to Learn”. Columbus, OH: Merrill. (1969).

[23] Schmidt K. E & Gallegos, A, "Distance Learning: Issues and Concerns of Distance Learners" Journal of Industrial Technology • Volume 17, Number3 • May 2001 to July 2001.

[24] Falkenburg, D. “The Greenfield Coalition: Partnership For Change In Manufacturing Engineering And Technology Education”, InternationalConference on Engineering Education, Oslo, Norway 2001.

[25] Gagne, R. “Instructional Technology Foundations”. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. (1987).

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURE. 1ELEARNING CONTENT DOMAIN.

FIGURE. 2LEARNING DOMAIN FOR ELEARNING CONTENT AND GREENFIELD COALITION PARADIGM.

International Conference on Engineering Education July 21–25, 2003, Valencia, Spain.8

FIGURE. 3MACHINING PROCESS AND PRODUCTION RATE ACTIVITY TOOL

FIGURE. 4ASSEMBLY AND PRODUCTION RATE TOOL

FIGURE. 5CAPACITY AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION TOOL.